Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
And there you have it...just make it up regardless of what the scriptures teaches.
"Lively" was perhaps a poor choice of terms. And for me to say that I don't believe it doesn't make a difference is also incorrect; otherwise I wouldn't hold these views. What I should have said is there are some truths that are far more fundamental to the faith than others. Some truths are the milk, some are the meat. Each of us has to decide where that line is.
You have that luxury. You've already been baptized by immersion (or so I assume). However, if you start hanging your hat with the RP and, subsequently, you evangelize someone, what will you advise them to do? Get sprinkled?
That's a very fair question and one of the reasons I have not become a Presbyterian. However, it all goes back to that line. To me the issue of free will is so paramount to the understanding of our faith. This heresy can be traced to just about every major error people hold today or ever held-and that's not an exaggeration.
Pick a heresy or a problem the church faces today and I'll trace it back to the idea that man is free; eschatology included. The church realized for 1900 years that we were the new Israel until someone got some looney idea that God just loves people who rejected His Son and worship a god that is totally foreign to the God revealed in scripture.
I would rather have a person be sprinkled and to understand God's glorious election and purpose for their life, than to watch people go through life being baptized thinking they were free to bounce around trying to do things to please God.
I don't know, why don't we try to answer that question from a Christian point of view?
"for You are not partial to any." [Mat 22:16]
"God is not one to show partiality." [Act 10:34]
"For there is no partiality with God." [Rom 2:11]
"God shows no partiality." [Gal 2:6]
Christians further believe that it is a sin to be partial.
"But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors." [James 2:9]
The Old Testament shows that the Jews also knew this.
"God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe." [Deut 10:17]
"Who shows no partiality to princes." [Job 34:18]
In the Christian mindset, it is to be understood that God, who is the Perfect Judge, is perfectly impartial, unbiased, shows no favoritism, or respect for human titles or external appearances of men.
To answer your question, God did not choose Israel so they can boast or claim special favor. He chose Israel to bring salvation to the world. He picked the Jews to do His work: to make God known to other nations, and not to boast about it.
(was that a barb directed at +Paul?)"My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism." [James 2:1]
I think your verse generator was made in Geneva. It's partial. :)
HD: And there you have it...just make it up regardless of what the scriptures teaches
"And he was three days without sight." [Act 9:9]
Matthew 22:16 talks about Jesus not caring about a person's appearance, or whether he is wealthy or poor.
In fact what translation is it you are using anyway? The word "partial" is not in the KJV
Acts 10:34, is interestingly followed by verse 35
10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Romans 2:11
is preceded by Romans2: 1-10 in which God is shown to judge all men fairly
2:2
But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
. 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 2:8 But unto them that are contentious , and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
God is not partial to men in that all men are fallen and all their works are as filthy rags. Only the righteousness of Christ saves anyone and that is something to which God is very partial.
God is not "partial to princes" means God is not influenced by wealth or title. Why would He be influenced by status, when it is God who confires all status in the first place?
As for Romans 2...
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God." -- Romans 2:9-11"Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Sounds to me like God is very partial to those who "worketh good" and not so partial to those who "doeth evil." And this is because, as we further learn from our Scripture generator, only those who have been born again by the Holy Spirit can do anything righteous or God-pleasing because "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23).
God is impartial to the works of men and very partial to the righteousness that is born of faith by the Holy Spirit.
"For the LORD hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure." -- Psalm 135:4
"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" -- 1 Peter 2:9"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth." -- Deuteronomy 14:2
As Scripture interprets Scripture, we come to understand that God is no respecter of individual effort, but of Christ alone. And God's children, whom He has loved from before the foundation of the world, are all those who have been given faith in Jesus Christ as the propitiation for their sins.
"Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." -- 1 Corinthians 12:27
"My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism." [James 2:1]
(was that a barb directed at +Paul?)
LOL. Not likely. It was Paul who wrote "But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord" (2 Corinthians 10:17).
So again Paul is reminding us that God is no respecter of men's works, but only of Christ's work on the cross and what the Holy Spirit accomplishes within His children.
"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us" -- Ephesians 2:4
"Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." -- 1 John 4:10"Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us." -- Romans 8:37
God is not partial to men's works, but to Christ's work alone. It is that work, freely given to us by God for His own good pleasure, which God sees within us and loves eternally
If you agree with that concept, then you agree that even Christians will be scrutized for heaven or for hell. The Bible makes it clear that Christians will also be scrutinized. Those found in Christ will be granted mercy and will not be subjected to God's judgment - a fiery wrath. Now, what will God use to "weed out" the good from the bad? Our actions. Nearly every book of the NT discusses that our eternal end will be dependent upon our response to God's good graces through our actions.
I wrote "Men are judged based on how they utilize the graces from God. No, they don't earn anything, because NO ONE can say "look what I done by myself".
You responded To me this still seems like a 180 degree contradictory statement. In the second sentence you say that men are judged for salvation on what they do. In the third sentence you say no one earns anything for salvation because of what he did. You can have one or the other, or neither, but you cannot have both. :)
I suppose I am not making myself clear. God gives us the gifts, whether spiritual (to fight sin or to be virtuous) or physical (to be strong or healty). Thus, at the end of the day, HOW can we come to God and say "I deserve this", because our gifts to serve him have been given to us by Him? However, it doesn't follow that because God has given us every good gift, that we are not involved in a free will response to His commands.
It is akin to receiving a vacuum for a present. Without it, I couldn't clean the floor. With it, I can choose to use it or not. I will not be able to go to God and say "Look, I cleaned the floor, I deserve something". We are only servants doing what we are expected to do - as Eph 2:10 states. Thus, the "why" I vacuum" is not to receive a reward, but as a loving response as part of the covenant with God. This is the response that the People of God, both OT and NT, are expected to provide to God.
God, being righteous, has promised a reward, eternal life, to those who obey Him. We have received the first fruits of this eternal life even now. We CAN love our enemies! Wow. Amazing. Eternal life has begun within us, because only by CHRIST can we love our enemies. This is proof of the beginning of our reward.
However, if we choose NOT to vacuum, despite the command, despite the ability given, God will judge accordingly. Thus, when God will scrutinize us, He will take into account how we obeyed Him - whether we used the gifts He has given us or not. At what point we give up our inheritance in this world, we cannot say.
And yet you just finished telling me that we do not merit entry into Heaven. Perhaps the entire concepts of "merit" or "earning" or "works" have theological meanings that appear no where in dictionaries. That must be the case since I have never been able to even follow this line of reasoning. :)
Sure there is. Look up "merit" in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and you will find two types of merit, a primary and secondary sense. It will explain the difference.
We humans need motivation and God uses different methods of accomplishing that. A large amount of that is contained in the encouragements and teachings we get in the Bible.
Which is exactly why we do not believe in Sola Scriptura. In two sentences, you have twice denied it.
True, false believers exist and will be turned away at the end. OTOH, true believers have already had their places made in Heaven by Christ Himself. (John 14:2-3)
Problem is that we don't know who the true believers are... I've known people who think they are true believers fall away and become atheists. Presumption is not something true believers have. We place our hope in Christ and pray for our PERSEVERANCE! Thus, if one presumes that they already have a place in heaven for themselves, they are not a true believer.
Regards
I hear you, and I pray the same. But for them God is a helper and man does the saving, both through individual free will and the rituals of the Church. Men like to think they have the power and are in full control. If Christ actually had all the power, and accomplished His mission in full, then it would necessarily mean less power for men. This, sadly, is untenable for them.
Oh where to start? Your scriptural postings are taken out of context and bear no relation to partiality re the elect
It makes no difference if it's about the elect or not. A Perfect Judge is impartial to all. That is a fundamental understanding. Partial means one who shows favoritism. God's blessings are given to all. His blessings are available to everyone. What we do with them is what we will be judged on—including the so-called "elect."
In fact what translation is it you are using anyway? The word "partial" is not in the KJV
So? What's so special about KJV except that it is thoroughly protestantized and therefore useless to me? I used NAB. I checked it againt NIV and KJV (to be sure, for I knew someone will say "it's not in the KJV") and in all cases the words were synonimous (i.e. partiality = favoritism, etc.)
Acts 10:34, is interestingly followed by verse 35
That verse does not suggest that God is partial, but that He justly rewards what is just, whether you are elect or not. The Jews believed that only they are the "elect" and even the Apostles were amazed that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit. The concept of divine favoritism is one of the errors of the Old Covenant to which, apparently, some supposefdly New Covenant Christians subscribe as well.
Romans 2:11 is preceded by Romans2: 1-10 in which God is shown to judge all men fairly
Imagine that! Are you saying I was suggesting otherwise by stating that God is impartial? LOL! In fact, I even state that God judges men fairly when I worte: "In the Christian mindset, it is to be understood that God, who is the Perfect Judge, is perfectly impartial, unbiased, shows no favoritism, or respect for human titles or external appearances of men."
I guess you didn't get that far before you fired off your response. Perhaps re-reading might help?
We don't believe that God prevents us from sinning at all after salvation. Where do you get that from?
If you're going to use a Scripture generator, Kosta, you should use it correctly. Taking verses out of context when the context defines the verses is against the rules. (Maybe you lost the manual.)
My verse generator is Protestant, and taking verses out of context is part of its operating system, by design. I was simply doing what Protestants do all the time. :)
Sounds to me like God is very partial to those who "worketh good" and not so partial to those who "doeth evil."
Sounds to me as if we have a vocabulary problem here. Being partial, dear doctor or whatever you are, is a negative characteristic in the English language. It is rather synonymous with being one-sided, unfair, prejudiced, and unjust.
God is not "partial" to those who "worketh good," but just. He is also just to those who "worketh evil." God is always just to everyone.
His judgment applies to everyone equally regardless if you are elect, select, chosen, predestined, a Jew or a Gentile.
Kosta: "My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism." [James 2:1] (was that a barb directed at +Paul?)
Dr. E: LOL. Not likely. It was Paul who wrote "But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord" (2 Corinthians 10:17).
LOL indeed. It is no secret that the two did not care much for each other and that it was +Paul who boasts of God's favoritism (the elect).
The Jews were not elected to boast or profit from it, but to spread the knowledge of God to all nations. "Salvation is from the Jews." They were chosen to do God's work, and not to boast. Apparently, +Paul did not see it that way. He was among those who felt that the elect were allowed to boast and +James corrected him.
It makes no difference if the Reformed sin or not. That's the point. Their sins are already paid for. No matter what they do, it's what was predestined and nothing could change it even if they had free will, which they don't. [Reformed theology 101]
Yep. And you've just proven our point.
The fact that "the Apostles were amazed the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit" tells us God's election is not based on works, but upon His good pleasure alone.
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." -- Acts 13:48
LOL. Your first comment on James "correcting" Paul was a guess, as you admitted when you wrote "was that a barb directed at +Paul?"
Now it's a fact? LOLOL.
I suppose this is how oral tradition works.
Sounds to me like you just make this stuff up.
According to the dictionary...
1) Of, relating to, being, or affecting only a part; not total; incomplete 2) Favoring one person or side over another or others 3) Having a particular liking or fondness for something or someone
Yep
Nope. FYI I'm partial to chicken and dumplings and apple pie
All we can do is pray for them and hope the Holy Spirit moves them.
If Christ actually had all the power, and accomplished His mission in full, then it would necessarily mean less power for men. This, sadly, is untenable for them.
The gospel is so simple to understand, this may be why these sects were so slow to have Bibles translated in the vernacular and encourage members of their sects to read them. If they read Scripture they can't help but start asking questions.
FWIW, you notice they didn't follow some highly ritualized practice. It was really simple. They heard the gospel and those that were meant to believed and were saved.
No, you missed the point. The point was that those who believe thye are elect are not necessarily the onyl ones who are elect...God elected anyone who is willing to come to Him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.